974
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
974 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
5432 readers
2385 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It really depends on which state you live in whether or not you have the luxury of a protest vote. If you live in NY state that has a 20% lead for Harris, sure, some people can vote Jill Stein or something. But if you live in a state that actually might be close or not an obvious blowout, you can't vote that way. You actually have to be tactical with your vote, not idealistic or symbolic.
Whenever I hear people pushing the, you're either with us or against us, kind of rhetoric it makes me shake my head. It should go without saying, but obviously it doesn't, that you don't get to tell other people how to vote, and if you try to, they're going to think you're a raving lunatic. If you actually want to convince them to vote, you might want to consider making a plan for how to reasonably sway their views.
Or don't, do whatever you want, it's your life.
Umm...that's the entire way we select leaders. The entire campaign for any office, high or low, is telling people how to vote. That's literally democracy in action.
And it is not wrong to tell people that if they want third party candidates, the path to do so is to start with voting reform. I'm in Oregon, and we're actually making progress on this instead of just bitching about it or running spoiler third party candidates. We have ranked-choice voting on the ballot this year. If it passes, all our state and federal elections will be decided by ranked-choice voting. We'll actually make it viable for progressive third party candidates to run for our US House and Senate seats without just serving as a spoiler for Republicans. We're actually doing something about the two party duopoly.
But you never hear these anti-Kamala trolls suggesting doing something that would actually make a difference. They show up every election, and their platform is ALWAYS "don't vote for the democrat." Doesn't matter what election. Doesn't matter what year. They always find some reason that you shouldn't vote for the Democratic candidate. Their criticisms always attack the Democratic candidate and ignore the Republican.
They're clowns and trolls. Nothing more. They bitch about the two-party duopoly, but they don't actually want to do anything. The truth is they're actually just Republican trolls.
Don't you see how you come across? You think you get to tell other people what to do. But humans don't like it when you try to tell them what to do. Instead of barking orders and calling names, why don't you try to convince people that you have a reasonable position?
I'm not sure what kind of red herring you've been smoking, and I would love to try some, but these people that you think show up every election and insist that we vote against the Democrat but never say anything bad about the Republicans, who exactly are you talking about? Certainly there are some centrist pundits on TV who have ridiculous positions like that, but fortunately I'm not seeing too many comments on this platform of such an absurd nature.
LOL, what rhetoric? I'm generally of the opinion that voting is an end in itself in democracies, and wish we had mandatory/compulsory voting laws. If you live in a democracy there should be obligation to vote, and the citizens should feel confident that we are accounting for the will of the people. But with the electoral college and first past the post system, there are realities of outcomes. There are really only 2 possible outcomes of a presidential race. And if you live in a swing state your vote does a lot more to tip realize one of those 2 outcomes. So the motivation to vote should be to help achieve one of those 2 outcomes that you find more preferable. If you live in a state that is not even close, that is when you don't have to worry much about your vote impacting the outcome and therefore have more latitude. I've voted 3rd party in multiple elections, but I did so in good conscious knowing I wasn't impacting the outcome of actual leadership due to the area I vote in. In pure rational choice model, sure, your individual vote likely won't matter (how often is a race decided by 1 vote?), but if the level of effort to vote is low, might as well do it just in case and for a sense of moral civic duty to a democracy.
Back in 2000 I traded my vote for Nader in a swing state with someone in a solidly blue state. We should do that now.